Chuck Kourouklis

Okay, Jesse, you got me. Not sure how we got here when you and I agree so fundamentally on that basic point. In fact, NOBODY has stated any better than you just why it's so ridiculous to get all hung up on kit criticism.

YES SIR! The right to express opinions and to ignore them cuts right to the heart of what I'm saying - notice that although I'm pointing out what's wrong with trying to mandate how a discussion goes, I'm not actually trying to tell anyone to stop doing it. I mean y'know, #2 at the blog linked at the signature - for more than five years now. With a pinch of #4 thrown in. But hey, I can humor everybody. Let's pop the hood for a sec on "Buy Or Don't Buy" (but shut up with the "complaining", amIright?) Makes me think of "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T BUY IT" - though I suppose there's a problem "Buy Or Don't Buy" side-steps. You can criticize a kit and still like it - hell, the Salvino's Olds lands waaaaayyy wide of its target and I still like it, I bought one, and I look to the Monte Carlos with eternally springing hope - but what the buy-or-don't-buy guys really seem to be saying is that they'd rather Revell lose sales than have to bear such horrific things as a peccadillo or two pointed out in a thread about a kit. What's to prevent anyone from drawing such a conclusion? And if that's the case, it ain't really about supporting kit manufacturers. Is it?

Actually, no. Discussing potential kit problems in a thread about the kit is topical. Trying to stifle that discussion runs counter to the very purpose of the forum.

Funny how that works, ain't it, Bob? Either you were entirely unmoved by whatever anemic discussion of potential kit problems there was in this thread, 'cause you're a grown-up about that stuff (and hey, them pics do look good). Or maybe you can recognize some problems but STILL like a kit and buy it. Point is, it's NOT a strictly binary set of alternatives here, no matter how convenient that might be for some folks.

Don't like it, don't read it. THAT's even simpler.

Terry, Mike, Rich & Rob - all correct. That's definitely an ESV in the reissue illustration, and the 2004 release was not one of those.

Sure! If they've gone to the same extent as the Rat Roaster (or even the '13 Boss), I'd certainly welcome it...

I personally would be just fine with a little filler panel for the fender scoops - weren't the scoops themselves separate? - but it appears Revell might have gone ahead and filled those in. A simple flip to the '70 body shell won't quite work because it's 1/24 and visibly larger than the '69. Maybe not 100%, but what's on the flyer looks VASTLY improved in the front end. Looking forward to it...

Like I said, guys, some thinking just doesn't rise above the lizard brain. My first meta-joke in assembling all those lame little broadsides at a frank examination of a kit was to demonstrate that they were so desperately repetitive and predictable, there was no point getting at them post by post in discussion threads any more - just have a repository online some place and then point them out by number every time some self-styled defender of kit manufacturer honor resorts to one. Looks like #1 has gotten some play within the last few posts, and classic old #5 is matched in its ridiculousness only by the number of times it gets dredged up. But there's another meta joke that gets bigger by the day. Look at the AGE of that blog I've linked in my signature now. Look how long ago all those sad excuses for arguments were flayed like vivisected frogs. And yet this legion of walking dead rationales shambles to the forefront every time a discussion like this turns in such a direction. There's something other than logic going on here, gents. I'd call it tribalism - but that just doesn't seem fair to the true tribes of the world.

Well well, with so many unsolicited judgments on one another's comments, here's mine: I too find posts pining for some other model year of some other subject annoying and off-topic. Know what I do? IGNORE THEM. And though some would clearly be overjoyed if they never again saw such germane feedback in a forum supposedly about such things, I clearly don't mind it when the grown-ups pick out a possible problem here or there with the subject of a given thread; just means I'll be more informed when I buy my two or three. After all, till I'm a moderator around here, it ain't mine to mandate anyone else's content. Just sayin'.

Exactly. Never did we get the first peep from AMT that there'd be another tooling variation beyond the custom '67 Impala, where we got signs popping up all over this one.

Well word 'round the campfire is, easy conversion to a '69 was a design factor - independent of what Casey quoted above. The parts count is listed at 126 - which I believe, although looking at the boxcover car, I do get the impression of maybe around 105-110 parts in that version with perhaps the balance going to another. Bit more than a boxcover mock-up at a trade show going on here if you're paying attention. I think the odds of a '69 follow-up are better than fair.

If model kit flaws were HALF as belabored as all the puling about "nit-picking"... and that's all I got to say outside the link at my signature. Over time it's become a lot clearer to me about how some reactions come straight from the amygdala, and actual thought shuts down at any level higher than that. As for the kit, I'm liking what I see so far, especially if we get a separate frame. I just LOOOOVE separate frames - more realistic overall, easier to paint detail too. This'll be great to set against the AMT '68 El Camino and examine.

Thanks for the intel as ever, James. VERY happy about the MGB and Performante. Regarding the latter, did Aoshima mention any correction to the modeling on the front fender/door transition? On the first releases the body shell looked backed into by a Transit Connect right about there.

MAN, there are maybe what, half the trees that carry over from the street version? Unfortunately, the firewall is one of those carry-over parts. But the chassis is new (or at least it has a new front insert with a more radically raised set of integrated lower suspension arms), engine's new, 30% of the interior's new, and so is the body shell, which has had its chrome moldings removed and the rear wheel arches teased a bit for the larger tires. I'd put this kit at a pretty conservative 60% distinct from the stock version.

Hack the "arms" off that "E", though, and you have your "I"...

I was a bit lukewarm about the street car and its '66-looking firewall, but a nose-in-the-air A/FX with a cammer cures many a minor ill.

Yeah, got a 250 TDF not long ago, VERY nice (at least till I try building the thing). Still up on the MFH website...

Nah, nah, nah, RULE BRITANNIA! Been deeply admiring Airfix's new-tool aircraft for a few years now, and I finally got hold of one of their recent 1/32 XK-Rs and liked it very much, found it nearly measures up to the warbirds. I'd VERY MUCH like to see a new riff from Airfix on a proper 1/24 D or E.

You're RIGHT, Bill. They look fantastic. As does the rest of your model. *edit* - yeah, heck with it. Luc really came up with the best word, so I'll just repeat it.

Latest excuse to feel old? It's been TEN YEARS now since that Hase 250TR debuted. Might just be outta production indeed. As for the quarter-scale, I bet the printing resolution issues get shrunk a bit in comparison with the hugeness of the model. Ain't got no 12k for a model kit, but I gotta admire something pushes the envelope like this.

I'm sorry, I thought a light touch on the button was a foregone conclusion no matter which of the legitimate techniques you use. For paints less volatile than your boily Tamiya varieties, I've even gotten away with spraying directly into my airbrush cup (usually on top of a drop or two of thinner) - not that I'd recommend such an approach.

Funny. I could'na given half a scat about a widebody Starion when they were current - but now that we're talking a new kit 3+ decades after the fact, I actually had a little Homer Simpson moan about not getting one. Nostalgia - ? R e a l l y ? Hmmph. Go figure.

Just remember, everyone: NOTHING - N O T H I N G - that involves puncturing the can. Because hey, at least for the risk of a paint-bombed face and wall or two, you get a mandatory emptying of all the can's contents. Oh yes. Enough rocket surgeons suppose they know better than the warning on EVERY PRESSURIZED AEROSOL CAN that there actually had to be a discussion about this, once upon a time...

And if there's a collective sigh of relief anywhere, just add mine. Funky stuff! I'm in for just about all of it. 2018 Camry tickles my funnybone.